AMD Radeon R7 M360 vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M360 and NVIDIA Quadro M3000M represent two very different mobile graphics philosophies from the same era, with the data showing a clear performance hierarchy. The Quadro M3000M is a professional workstation part built on a large GM204 chip, while the R7 M360 is a modest entry-level solution based on the small Meso die. Benchmark results show the gap is substantial, but each card has a specific role where it can be considered appropriate.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M wins decisively in every benchmark category where both cards have recorded scores. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 16,646 against the R7 M360’s 4,638, a delta of -72.1% from the R7 M360’s perspective. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro scores 16,668 versus 5,223, a -68.7% delta. These are not marginal victories; they represent a multi-generational leap in raw compute throughput and graphics capability. The Quadro M3000M also benefits from a much wider memory bus and higher bandwidth, which directly impacts texture-heavy workloads and larger frame buffers.

The AMD Radeon R7 M360 has no winning benchmark scenarios in the head-to-head data. However, its role is defined by its constraints rather than its victories. It is a low-power, end-of-life mobile part with a 28 nm process node and a 64-bit memory bus. Its 2 GB DDR3 memory and 14.40 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for basic display output and light 2D tasks, but it will struggle with any modern 3D application. The data suggests it is best suited for basic laptop functionality, not gaming or professional rendering. The Quadro M3000M, conversely, is positioned for CAD, DCC, and compute workloads where its 4 GB GDDR5 memory and 160.4 GB/s bandwidth are essential.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M360 has a higher average benchmark score of 4,931 compared to the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M’s 4,621, despite losing both head-to-head tests. This is because the Quadro’s average includes multiple PassMark tests with very low scores, such as 26 in DirectX 10 and 23 in DirectX 12, which drag its average down.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Geekbench Vulkan performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M scores 16,668 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 11,445 points higher than the AMD Radeon R7 M360’s score of 5,223. The Quadro is 68.7% faster in this test.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M360 has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The AMD Radeon R7 M360 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The Quadro’s higher feature level indicates support for more advanced rendering features.

Q: What is the pixel rate of each card?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M360 has a pixel rate of 9.000 GPixel/s. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M has a pixel rate of 29.57 GPixel/s, which is over three times higher.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M has 5,200 million transistors, while the AMD Radeon R7 M360 has 1,550 million. The Quadro’s chip is significantly more complex, with a die size of 398 mm² versus 125 mm².

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data includes only two tests, both of which are won by the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M. The first is Geekbench OpenCL, where the Quadro scores 16,646 against the R7 M360’s 4,638. The delta is -72.1%, meaning the R7 M360 is less than a third as fast in this compute-oriented workload. This test is particularly relevant for GPU-accelerated applications like video encoding and scientific simulation. The Quadro’s 1.892 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 1,024 shading units provide the raw compute muscle, whereas the R7 M360’s 864.0 GFLOPS and 384 shading units are simply outclassed.

The second test is Geekbench Vulkan, where the Quadro scores 16,668 versus 5,223. The delta is -68.7%. Vulkan is a low-overhead API that scales well with hardware resources, and the Quadro’s superior memory bandwidth (160.4 GB/s) and texture fill rate (59.14 GTexel/s) allow it to dominate. The R7 M360’s 27.00 GTexel/s texture rate and 14.40 GB/s bandwidth are bottlenecks that no driver optimization can overcome. Interestingly, the R7 M360 scores slightly higher in Vulkan (5,223) than in OpenCL (4,638), suggesting its architecture handles the newer API reasonably well relative to its own capabilities, but the absolute gap to the Quadro remains enormous.

Beyond these two tests, the Quadro M3000M has additional PassMark results that paint a fuller picture, though the R7 M360 has no comparable scores. The Quadro scores 5,543 in PassMark G3D, 2,139 in GPU Compute, and 402 in G2D. Its DirectX 9 score of 98 is its best legacy API result, while DirectX 12 and DirectX 10 scores are 23 and 26 respectively. These numbers indicate the Quadro is a strong DirectX 9 performer but struggles with modern APIs in synthetic tests, likely due to driver overhead or test methodology. The R7 M360’s lack of these scores makes a direct comparison impossible, but its Geekbench results suggest it would be far below the Quadro in all of these categories.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification that matters for performance. The AMD Radeon R7 M360 uses a 64-bit memory bus, while the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M uses a 256-bit bus. This directly explains the bandwidth difference: 14.40 GB/s versus 160.4 GB/s, an order of magnitude gap. Memory type also differs, with the R7 M360 using DDR3 and the Quadro using GDDR5. Memory capacity is 2 GB versus 4 GB, which affects the ability to hold large textures or datasets.

The shading units differ significantly: the R7 M360 has 384, while the Quadro has 1,024. Texture mapping units are 24 versus 64, and ROPs are 8 versus 32. These differences cascade into fill rates. The R7 M360 achieves 9.000 GPixel/s and 27.00 GTexel/s, while the Quadro achieves 29.57 GPixel/s and 59.14 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 864.0 GFLOPS versus 1.892 TFLOPS, meaning the Quadro has over twice the single-precision compute power. The R7 M360 also lists FP16 performance at 864.0 GFLOPS (1:1), while the Quadro has no FP16 data.

Clock speeds are interesting because the R7 M360 runs faster. Its base clock is 1100 MHz with a boost of 1125 MHz, whereas the Quadro runs at 823 MHz base and 924 MHz boost. The Quadro compensates with far more execution units. Memory clocks also differ: the R7 M360 runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the Quadro runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The bus interface differs as well: the R7 M360 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The Quadro is an MXM Module with a TDP of 75 W and no power connectors, while the R7 M360 has no listed TDP or slot width.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is fundamental. The AMD Radeon R7 M360 is built on GCN 3.0 with the Meso chip, while the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M uses Maxwell 2.0 with the GM204 chip. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts could not be more different: 1,550 million for AMD versus 5,200 million for NVIDIA. The die sizes are 125 mm² and 398 mm² respectively, leading to transistor densities of 12.4M / mm² for AMD and 13.1M / mm² for NVIDIA. The similar density at vastly different scales shows that NVIDIA simply used a much larger chip to achieve its performance.

The AMD card belongs to the “Gem System (R7 M300)” generation, with a predecessor in “Solar System” and a successor in “Polaris Mobile.” The NVIDIA card is part of “Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M),” with a predecessor in “Quadro Kepler-M” and a successor in “Quadro Pascal-M.” The Quadro’s Maxwell 2.0 architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the R7 M360’s GCN 3.0 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but Vulkan support differs: the R7 M360 lists Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Quadro lists Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro’s higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version indicate more modern API support, which matters for future software compatibility.

The R7 M360 has no RT or tensor cores, and neither does the Quadro, as both predate ray tracing hardware. The R7 M360’s FP16 support at 1:1 ratio is notable for a card of its class, but it is not matched by the Quadro, which lists no FP16 capability. The Quadro’s display outputs are “Portable Device Dependent,” reflecting its MXM form factor, while the R7 M360 lists no display outputs. Both cards are end-of-life, with the R7 M360 released on 2015-05-04 and the Quadro on 2015-08-17. The Quadro’s 75 W TDP is officially listed, while the R7 M360’s TDP is absent from the data, suggesting it is lower but unquantified.